Voter fraud? Boston reports 129% voter turnout, 79% for Obama; 74% for Elizabeth Warren

In by Poor RichardLeave a Comment

Mystery solved?  See Updates

Something screwy happened in Boston.  The election results indicate 129% turnout of registered voters. 129%???!??!?! 

here’s a screenshot from the election results (PDF):

Check out Ward 18:

  • Precinct 1:132.24% turnout; 97.15% for Obama
  • Precinct 2: 139.20% turnout; 98.91% for Obama
  • Precinct 3: 140.80% turnout; 98.57% for Obama

It goes on and on and on like that, and it’s the same for the Elizabeth Warren results.  I don’t imagine that Romney would have won Massachusetts (which is a bluer than blue state).  However, Scott Brown lost by a much slimmer margin to Elizabeth Warren, and vote totals like these could very well have swung the election results.

I understand that the PDF says these are the “Unofficial Results” but I want to know where the official results are, and if everything’s ok there, how do they explain these numbers and the discrepancy?

Philly had results like these too in the very same precincts that kicked out Republican poll watchers.

UPDATE: An astute reader points out that the results also show the number of actual votes counted versus “cards cast.”  Those numbers seem far more believable than the numbers under the turnout column.  This still leaves me scratching my head as to why there is such a giant discrepancy between the number of cards cast and the number of votes.  Essentially, there appear to be on average 2 cards cast for every vote counted, in which case actual voter turnout would be almost exactly half of what this chart is indicating.  

Why would there be twice the number of cards cast as actual votes?

UPDATE 2: A reader from Boston wrote and told me that the ballots there were two pages, which would possibly account for the number of cards cast.  Also, a poll worker on Reddit confirmed that “cards cast” would indeed line up with the number of pages on the ballot.  

So, actual voter turnout in Boston was somewhere closer to 64.5%, not 129%.  The number of votes cast backs this up.  Best-case scenario would be that whoever prepared the “Unofficial Results” screwed up the turnout columns by counting each ballot page as a voter.  

In this case, the 79% Obama vote wouldn’t necessarily be fraudulent.  It would just indicate that Boston is full of liberal zombies. Even in the case of a simple clerical error, however, the confidence in the result gets greatly diminished.